| Literature DB >> 35161582 |
Carmen Guzmán-García1, Patricia Sánchez-González1,2, Juan A Sánchez Margallo3, Nicola Snoriguzzi1, José Castillo Rabazo3, Francisco M Sánchez Margallo3, Enrique J Gómez1,2, Ignacio Oropesa1.
Abstract
Modern surgical education is focused on making use of the available technologies in order to train and assess surgical skill acquisition. Innovative technologies for the automatic, objective assessment of nontechnical skills are currently under research. The main aim of this study is to determine whether personal resourcefulness can be assessed by monitoring parameters that are related to stress and visual attention and whether there is a relation between these and psychomotor skills in surgical education. For this purpose, we implemented an application in order to monitor the electrocardiogram (ECG), galvanic skin response (GSR), gaze and performance of surgeons-in-training while performing a laparoscopic box-trainer task so as to obtain technical and personal resourcefulness' metrics. Eight surgeons (6 nonexperts and 2 experts) completed the experiment. A total of 22 metrics were calculated (7 technical and 15 related to personal resourcefulness) per subject. The average values of these metrics in the presence of stressors were compared with those in their absence and depending on the participants' expertise. The results show that both the mean normalized GSR signal and average surgical instrument's acceleration change significantly when stressors are present. Additionally, the GSR and acceleration were found to be correlated, which indicates that there is a relation between psychomotor skills and personal resourcefulness.Entities:
Keywords: attention; personal resourcefulness; psychomotor skills; stress; surgical education; surgical skills
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161582 PMCID: PMC8838092 DOI: 10.3390/s22030837
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Star-track test (as seen in the box trainer).
Figure 2Monitoring parameters in the designed experiment.
Figure 3Setup of the experiment. ECG and GSR sensors are located inside the box trainer (red light). Eye tracker located immediately below the monitor showing the video feed captured by the camera inside the box trainer. The laptop is running the application gathering data. Research assistant is ready to start the second phase of the experiment, in which he will read mathematical questions out loud.
Metrics of stress derived from ECG and HRV. Where denotes the time intervals between two consecutive R peaks, xLF is the filtered version of the HRV signal in the frequency band [0.05–0.15] Hz, T is the period of the signal and xHF is the filtered version of the HRV signal in the frequency band [0.16–0.50] Hz.
| Metric | Description | Formula |
|---|---|---|
| Time-domain metrics | ||
| AVNN | Average value of NN intervals (ms). |
|
| SDNN | Standard deviation of NN intervals. |
|
| RMSSD | Root mean square of successive differences between successive NN intervals. |
|
| PNN20 | Ratio of the number of pairs of consecutive NN intervals differing by more than 20 ms over the total number of NN intervals. |
|
| PNN50 | Ratio of the number of pairs of consecutive NN intervals differing by more than 50 ms over the total number of NN intervals. |
|
| Frequency-domain metrics | ||
| LF | Absolute power of the signal in low frequency bands. |
|
| HF | Absolute power of the signal in high frequency bands. |
|
| LF-HF ratio | Ratio between the total energy in low frequency and the total energy in the high frequency. |
|
| LFnu | Normalized spectral LF index. |
|
| HFnu | Normalized spectral HF index |
|
Figure 4Example of the ROI that was used to extract the ratio of gaze points.
MAPs obtained from EVA tracking system.
| MAPs. | Definition | Formulae |
|---|---|---|
| Time (T) | Total time to perform a task (s) | T |
| Path length (PL) | Total path covered by the instrument in the setting (m) |
|
| Average speed (S) | Rate of change of the instrument’s position in the setting (mm/s). Results are measured for the total magnitude and in each Cartesian direction of the box trainer. |
|
| Average acceleration (A) | Rate of change of the instrument’s velocity within the setting (mm/s2) |
|
| Economy of area (EOA) | Relationship between maximum surface area (task plane) occupied by the instrument and total path length |
|
| Economy of volume (EOV) | Relationship between maximum volume occupied by the instrument in the setting and total path length |
|
| Depth (D) | Total path length travelled in the instrument’s axis direction (m) |
|
* ** .
Figure 5Box plot of phases 1 and 2 of the experiment for each of the metrics. Red and blue dots indicate the value for non-experts and experts, respectively.
Figure 6Correlation matrix. Color map and size represent the correlation between the variables. A star is depicted whenever the correlation was statistically significant according to Pearson or Spearman’s test.